The firearm thread

**Indiana_Jones** · 11th January 2009, 13:53

http://www.huntersparadiseonline.com...atprojects.htm

this guy just killed two Nagants!

-Indy

**Wolf** · 11th January 2009, 23:08

Originally Posted by Indiana_Jones

http://www.huntersparadiseonline.com...atprojects.htm

this guy just killed two Nagants!

-Indy

A swift death is too good for that bastard, aim for the kneecaps!

**Drunken Monkey** · 14th January 2009, 10:06

Originally Posted by Mr Merde

Not too sure of that. If you look at the methods that were employed for musketry in the late 18th to the early 19th century you can understand his thinking.
...
So looking at these points old Ben's idea wasnt so bad. Arrows were silent. They could be fashioned from local material. They were not too heavy, an archer could easily have the same range as a musket of the time, in light of the tactics used. The hit and run tactics of the militia would have been just as effective if not more so. No powder smoke with which to identify the direction of fire.

This is only my thoughts on the subject.

Chris

Sorry to backtrack a bit, I forgot I was participating in a discussion for a while...

You forget, the firearm rendered armour useless virtually 'overnight'. Plate and chainmail armour are effective arrow stoppers. They don't stop musket balls.

You can also train effective musketeers faster than effective longbowmen. There's been a couple of good docos on NatGeo and History channel over the break about this subject actually. On further answers of economy, the typical musketeer was significantly cheaper to kit out and maintain (although the comparison may have been against heavy infantry and cav, not longbowmen).

Additionally, troops in times which did feature b&a as commonplace, if nto armoured, would have had shields. Many troop formations (e.g. Testudo) are able to see incoming arrow barrages and hide. You can't see incoming musket balls.

Given some of those points you listed above are perfectly valid in some situations, the reality is if it was a sensible solution, it would have been adopted more readily...

**Mr Merde** · 14th January 2009, 10:19

Originally Posted by Drunken Monkey

Sorry to backtrack a bit, I forgot I was participating in a discussion for a while...

You forget, the firearm rendered armour useless virtually 'overnight'. Plate and chainmail armour are effective arrow stoppers. They don't stop musket balls.

You can also train effective musketeers faster than effective longbowmen. There's been a couple of good docos on NatGeo and History channel over the break about this subject actually. On further answers of economy, the typical musketeer was significantly cheaper to kit out and maintain (although the comparison may have been against heavy infantry and cav, not longbowmen).

Additionally, troops in times which did feature b&a as commonplace, if nto armoured, would have had shields. Many troop formations (e.g. Testudo) are able to see incoming arrow barrages and hide. You can't see incoming musket balls.

Given some of those points you listed above are perfectly valid in some situations, the reality is if it was a sensible solution, it would have been adopted more readily...

Points taken.

Reading a lot lately about Agincourt.
5500 archers, 12 arrows each a min, battle lasted 30-40 min,
If the archers only were in action with their bows for half that time then the total number of arrows loosed woulf be 660,000

The French Knights and nobility didnt manage to hide or raise sheilds for that number of arrows. Popular history states that 10,000 of them died in the charge.

As to training I agree with you here. Most of those archers trained from boyhood. It was not so long ago that the law that obliged every male in Wales to practise a certain number of hours a week, with the bow, was recinded. About 60 years ago.

There is another weapon that could have been devistating. Air rifles.

During the Napoleonic wars there was an Imperial edict from Napoleon himself that anyone captured with an air rifle was to be immediately executed. They were that feared. Quiet, rifled, accurate and with a possible range of twice that of the typical infantry musket of the time.

Chris

**Wolf** · 14th January 2009, 12:52

Originally Posted by Mr Merde

Quiet, rifled, accurate and with a possible range of twice that of the typical infantry musket of the time.

Chris

Relatively quiet, compared with a powder blast - and no flames or smoke.

I figure they'd've taken a while to pump up a killing pressure so such a weapon is a deliberate-use, specific-target (aka "assassin's") weapon.

**Mr Merde** · 14th January 2009, 13:26

Originally Posted by Wolf

Relatively quiet, compared with a powder blast - and no flames or smoke.

I figure they'd've taken a while to pump up a killing pressure so such a weapon is a deliberate-use, specific-target (aka "assassin's") weapon.

Hence the execution order on anyone caught with one

**Drunken Monkey** · 14th January 2009, 14:52

Originally Posted by Mr Merde

Points taken.

Reading a lot lately about Agincourt.
5500 archers, 12 arrows each a min, battle lasted 30-40 min,
If the archers only were in action with their bows for half that time then the total number of arrows loosed woulf be 660,000

The French Knights and nobility didnt manage to hide or raise sheilds for that number of arrows. Popular history states that 10,000 of them died in the charge.

On Battelfield detectives, they indicate it wasn't the charge that they were killed in as such, but the biggest killer was panic trampling + funnel effect. They used some software used to model panic situations in London tube stations. I won't go into it in too much detail, but it was an interesting postulation.

But otherwise my memory RE: Agincourt in general is hazy, so I'll run with your latest. Only one point to ponder though; armoured knights need not raise shields to defend against arrows, supposedly that's what their armour does?

I think airrifles was done in another thread, or was it just earlier in this thread?

**Drunken Monkey** · 14th January 2009, 14:58

a-ha! I need not explain, someone has done it for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...ncourt#Terrain

**Wolf** · 14th January 2009, 15:08

Originally Posted by Mr Merde

Hence the execution order on anyone caught with one

I know. I added my fourpence for the benefit of those who might not understand why an air rifle was an executable offence while BP firearms were not.

"Wholesale slaughter of troops in battle, good; surgical assassination of key figures, bad"... funny how it's those most likely to qualify as "key figures" who're most prone to thinking that way.

Most soldiers would probably be quite happy if the enemy devoted more effort to sneaking in assassins, to wipe out specific leaders, than to shooting at the aforesaid soldiers.

**Mr Merde** · 14th January 2009, 15:19

Originally Posted by Drunken Monkey

On Battelfield detectives, they indicate it wasn't the charge that they were killed in as such, but the biggest killer was panic trampling + funnel effect. They used some software used to model panic situations in London tube stations. I won't go into it in too much detail, but it was an interesting postulation.

But otherwise my memory RE: Agincourt in general is hazy, so I'll run with your latest. Only one point to ponder though; armoured knights need not raise shields to defend against arrows, supposedly that's what their armour does?

I think airrifles was done in another thread, or was it just earlier in this thread?

Debates like this are why I like forums. Sensible, articulate and non confrontational.

Good on you mate for making me use my brain

Chris

**Indiana_Jones** · 14th January 2009, 16:38

Indy has done it again.....

-Indy

**enigma51** · 14th January 2009, 18:10

Originally Posted by Indiana_Jones

Indy has done it again.....

-Indy

its an air rifle

**Magua** · 14th January 2009, 18:18

It looks a lot better in person, very nice wood on it,

**Wolf** · 14th January 2009, 19:11

Originally Posted by Indiana_Jones

Indy has done it again.....

Hope you have a sizeable bathtub, dude, trying to sleep in a shower's fucking uncomfortable.

Assuming, of course, she lets you actually sleep in the house.

Still, the weather report looks OK for sleeping under the stars.